GOPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the accused 1 to 6 and they have come forward with this appeal challenging the Judgment dated 10.10.2005 of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Chengalpattu made in SC.No.194/2000 convicting the appellants/A-1 to A-6 for the offence under section 148 IPC and sentencing them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment and convicting appellants/A-2 to A-5 for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs.5,000/- carrying with the default sentence of six months simple imprisonment. THE sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows:-

(3.) MR. D. Veerasekaran, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused by adducing clear and consistent evidence. It is contended that the prosecution examined two eyewitnesses, viz., P.Ws.2 and 4 and P.W.4 has turned hostile and as such, it is unsafe to place reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of P.W.2. It is submitted that P.W.1 has categorically stated in the chief examination that he has written Ex.P.1 report only as per the dictation of the Inspector. But P.W.1 has not been treated hostile. Learned counsel would further submit that curiously in Ex.P.1, the names of all the accused have been mentioned in spite of the fact that P.W.1 is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. It is contended that there is no explanation from the prosecution as the Investigating Officer, P.W.32, has not given any explanation as to how the names of the accused 1 to 6 have been mentioned in Ex.P.1 and on whose information. It is further contended that P.W.2, brother of the deceased, had categorically stated even in his chief examination that after the occurrence, they went to the respondent Police Station and gave a report and thereafter, P.W.2 reiterated in his cross examination to the effect that on 13.12.1998, he gave the report at 7.30 p.m. to the Inspector of Police wherein he has stated about the occurrence which was recorded by the Inspector and he has signed in that report and further stated that, only that report is the first report in respect of this case. But the prosecution has suppressed that report and as such, there is a serious doubt about the prosecution case and the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence.